Sunday, 15 December 2013

A current petition on the No10 website has highlighted a flaw in the rules that allows MPs and Lords to vote and debate on legislation that may gain revenue for a company that either they own, which employs them or donates to their office.

If you are a local councillor such interests would debar you from a vote and debate at the discretion of the chamber.
Now that the petition has reached over 10,000, the government has been forced to respond, so how do they justify such a difference?

The petition made several demands.

i. No member of Parliament may speak or vote in a debate on legislation which could financially benefit any commercial operation in which they have a financial interest;

and

ii. No member of Parliament may speak or vote in a debate on legislation which could financially benefit any commercial operation which has made - or currently makes - donations to themselves personally or their political party.

In response the government stated that it would “not be practical” to prevent Members speaking or voting on legislation which could “financially benefit any commercial operation in which they have a financial interest” or which has made “donations to themselves of (or) their party”. The reason? Because a “significant number of legislative provisions in any year may have beneficial financial implications for all or most commercial operations.”

In terms of donations to the party, as a whole, then this is probably correct. For example, if a person connected to a private health company gave money to a political party, it may make a member of the public mistrust the party, especially if they then go on to win contracts but it is unreasonable to think that this would be enough to debar the entire party from voting on any legislation on legislation that may have an affect on private health and would bring Parliament to a halt.

However, the government claims that it would “not be practical” to prevent a MP from voting with a financial interest is absurd and arrogant. The government says there are many “questions” as to how such a “complex requirement” could be “policed effectively”?

Well, they need look no further than the rules that apply to councillors at a local level. Any prejudicial interest held by a councillor would debar them from a vote and indeed a debate depending on the acceptance of the Chamber.

This current situation suggests that MPs and Lords are somehow more able to separate their public duty from their outside interest, which is patently absurd. Given the level of commercial interests that exist in parliament, the need to change the rules to match those at local level is obvious.

Take Baroness Cumberlege, the Conservative Peer and former Health Secretary. She owns a company that she moved into a position to gain revenue from the new Commissioning Groups, a key component of the Health bill on which she voted. The legislation goes through thanks in part to her vote and she ends up winning small contracts for providing courses to some of the new Commissioning Groups. It’s okay though, because she put her business interest in the Register.

Over 200 parliamentarians had recent or present financial interests to companies or individuals involved in healthcare at the time of the Health and Social Care bill. They were all able to vote, despite these interests. Further research has confirmed that some of these companies attached to Lords either by employment or donations, have gone on to gain contracts in the new NHS.

The fact of the matter is that in their current form, the rules allow any MP or Lord to vote on legislation that may open revenue opportunities for the companies that employ them or donate to them. The rules are different for local councillors who manage to police such matters adequately.

Until MPs and Lords are debarred from a vote when they have a prejudicial interest, then every time they place their vote it will be difficult to know whether their action was in the interest of the public or the corporation that employs them.

The government will always resist further scrutiny, just as they did when a proposal was made for a Register of Interests back in 1974. I leave you with this:

“Should the public know of our outside interests? My answer strictly
speaking, is ‘No’. Why should they? There is no opportunity for
corruption and precious little opportunity for influence…We are not
crooks and we want it to be seen that we are not crooks. We are in the
public eye and we hold jobs, which in the eyes of the public are very
important. Conservative MP for Lowestoft, James Prior 22nd May, 1974 http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1974/may/22/members-interests

Friday, 13 December 2013

A new set of communications has brought into
question the neutrality of the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary
Organisations (ACEVO), on the outcome of the Health and Social Care bill.

When the Health and Social Care bill came to a shuddering halt following
widespread rejection across the medical profession, the government paused the
process to set up a Forum in what turned
out to be a faux ‘listening exercise.’

The head of the ‘Choice and Competition’ element to the Forum was Sir Stephen
Bubb, the Chief Executive of ACEVO. Sir Bubb’s preference for competition in
the NHS was no secret; he openly called
for the “health and social care market to be opened up” and consistently voiced
his support for more competition.

However, throughout the period of the farcical
‘listening exercise’, ACEVO said they did not take a position on the Health and
Social Care bill, and were neither for it or against it. This view was repeated in March
2012 when they said "ACEVO has not taken a position on the controversial
health bill as a whole."

The email
However, a Freedom of Information request has unearthed an email written on the
17th August 2011, just after the ‘listening’ period that brings this
statement into serious doubt. The author of the email is unknown because the
name was redacted. The person thanked David Bennett, the head of the NHS regulator Monitor, for a ‘roundtable summary.’ It
stated how it was good to see…that so many participants…place ‘choice’ at the
top of priorities for Monitor.’ If ACEVO were not taking a position on the
Health bill, then why are ACEVO in an email to Monitor saying it is 'good'
people at the meeting were placing 'choice' as a priority for Monitor. Surely,
if they do not take a position such a priority would be neither good nor bad as
far as ACEVO are concerned.

Furthermore, the author of the email also suggested Monitor hold a 'desecrate'
(discreet) meeting with ACEVO members to 'bounce ideas off and sound them out
on reform and competition'. Why was it suggested to make this meeting
discreet? What did they have to hide?

ACEVO did indeed attend a roundtable meeting with Monitor hosted at the
offices of the Royal National Institute for the Blind, with representatives from
voluntary organisations that included CEOs from Asthma UK, Action on Hearing
loss and Diabetes UK. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the new
regulators' new role and purpose'.

Lobbying letter

This email follows on from the recent revelation uncovered
by Social Investigations that Sir Stephen Bubb had teamed up alongside private
healthcare trade and lobby group, the NHS Partners Network to urge Jeremy Hunt not
to water down the secondary legislation, S.75 privatisation regulations. The letter carried the ACEVO logo, which strongly suggests this lobbying letter was in agreement with ACEVO and not Sir Stephen Bubb acting alone. Acevo are not ambivalent to the outcome of the the Health and Social Care bill, but have actively lobbied to ensure competition remains a key component of the new NHS.

ACEVO have twice been contacted to answer questions on their neutrality and have so far
refused to answer.

Questions
The questions are below and we welcome a response at any time.

1) If ACEVO were not taking a position on the Health bill, then why are ACEVO
in an email to Monitor saying it is 'good' people at the meeting were placing
'choice' as a priority for Monitor. Surely, if they do not take a position such
a priority would be neither good nor bad as far as ACEVO are concerned?

2) Also, the names are redacted - who wrote the email?

3) The author of the email also suggested Monitor hold a 'desecrate' (discreet) meeting with ACEVO members to 'bounce ideas off and sound them out on reform
and competition'. Why was it suggested to make this meeting discreet?

4) The letter is sent with the ACEVO logo on it. It is therefore logical to assume, this
position is that of ACEVO and not Sir Stephen Bubb. Is
this the case?

5) Was this letter written by both Sir Stephen
and David Worskett?

6) By sending this letter out on behalf of ACEVO, is it right to assume members
of ACEVO were contacted about this before the letter went out? If not, then is
it normal practice to send out lobbying letters on behalf of the membership
without consent?

Wednesday, 14 August 2013

Charity boss Sir Stephen
Bubb lobbied alongside the head of a private healthcare trade group to persuade
Jeremy Hunt to not water down highly controversial “Section 75” privatisation
regulations, according to new documents revealed today.

The regulations - made
under the Health & Social Care Act just as the bill was coming into force
in April this year - were seen by many as confirming the determination of the
government to hand over large swathes of the NHS to private companies. The
regulations effectively force local health bosses to put all
services out to tender unless they can prove there is just one capable
provider.

As the debate raged over
the implications of the regulations - with the RCGP, the RCN, and the BMA all
coming out strongly against them - the Chairman of the Association of Chief
Executives of Voluntary Organisations (ACEVO), Sir Stephen Bubb, teamed up with
private healthcare advocates the NHS Partners Network to lobby the health
secretary, Jeremy Hunt into not ‘watering down’ the regulations.

Friday, 9 August 2013

Monitor the new NHS
regulator has spent close to half a million pounds on recruitment fees to two
head hunter firms both financially connected to Members of the House of Lords.

The Health and Social
Care Act massively increased the significance of Monitor’s role in the new NHS.
The previous responsibility had predominantly been as regulator to the foundation trusts.
The Health and Social Care Act greatly expanded their
significance to become the sector regulator of the NHS and competition enforcer.

These new roles have
required new staff and Monitor have chosen two firms with financial links to
Members of the Lords to fill the key roles in their organisation. Following a
Freedom of Information request, it was discovered that one of the companies,
Odgers Berndtson, filled 12 senior personnel at a cost of close to £200,000 in
agency fees.

Monday, 15 July 2013

Patients
are about to be targeted like never before by advertising companies as face
recognition software merges with information screens to profile your interests
as you wait for your doctor.

LordSugar is on the verge of selecting one
more hard-nosed apprentice to his entrepreneurial stable as his Apprentice
programme reaches its latest conclusion this Wednesday. Quite what work the
eventual winner will undertake is unclear but a previous winner was selected
to run the sales of a project that profiles patients in the NHS as they sit and
wait for their GP.

Amscreen
Plc is part of Lord Sugar’s Amshold Group of companies, which is based
in the tax haven of Jersey and is overseen by his son Simon Sugar, who is the
CEO. The company, which launched in 2008 when Lord Sugar bought Comtech M2M, provides T.V screens into places where there is a captive
audience and places targeted marketing alongside the other content the
organisation may use. These screens are placed
in GP surgeries, hospitals and dentists throughout the UK and in Europe
and also in petrol stations, convenience stores.

Tuesday, 2 July 2013

1.Change the NHS from within: New research conducted by Social
Investigations has revealed a Head Hunter firm with financial links to a
Conservative Baroness has been able to gain revenue directly from changes that
took place because of the Health and Social Care Act on which the Baroness
voted. Furthermore, the Chairman of the company has funded the Conservative
party in a process that changes the NHS from within. Full story...

2.“Nothing Short of Corruption”: The House of Commons have just hosted a
second debate on lobbying, following the recent scandal to envelop parliament
and once more soil the already tarnished reputation of UK politics. In
the debate, which was on the introduction of a statutory register of lobbyists,
the Labour MP for Easington, Grahame Morris, chose to highlight the breadth of
healthcare interests held by MPs and Lords; the first time this research has
entered into parliamentary discussion. Full story...

3.2020health Think Tank:
Documents released by the Department of Health under the Freedom of Information
Act reveal a healthcare think tank with multiple links to coalition peers wants
to turn the NHS into an “asset” of “UK Plc” - and which suggests the government
needs to “charm” private healthcare “international corporations”. Full story...

4. Earl
Howe: The Parliamentary Under secretary for Health Earl Howe, who led the
Health and Social Care bill proceedings in the House of Lords, was listed as a
patron for pro-market think tank 2020health, just before the elections. Full story...

5. Lobbying Moves In-House - Nick
Seddon: Number 10 welcomes Nick Seddon, former lobbyist and private healthcare
advocate, into Downing Street to lead on
health policy formation. What does this say about Cameron’s real attitude to
the lobbying game he has publicly decried? And what kind of policies will
Seddon be pushing now? There are good reasons to be concerned. Full story...

6. Breaking
the code – the Healthcare Chain:The Members’ financial interests
represent every stage of the healthcare value chain: from private equity firms
that fund private healthcare companies, to holding shares in those same
companies. They are Chairmen of companies who run NHS estates, are involved in
PFI deals, are partners in legal firms that seal those deals, advisers to
private hospitals, they also represent companies in pharmaceutical media,
medical equipment, care homes, lobbying, and health insurance. Full story...

7. Healthcare
Coup: The Lords didn’t save us the first time:In
early 2012 the Lords voted in favour of the Health and Social Care bill, the
final step in turning it into an Act. As the Lords sat in the house to debate
and vote on the bill, research conducted by Social Investigations revealed
the Lords were riddled with private healthcare interests across all parties.
Despite these recent or present financial links to private companies involved
in healthcare, they were allowed to debate and vote. Full story...

8. Unhealthy Influence: The Rise ofthen
NHS Partners Network: The transformation of a small
private healthcare trade association into a powerful and influential lobby
group provides a clear indication of the direction the NHS has taken.Today the NHS Partners Network has some of
the most powerful private healthcare companies as members and is a trustee on
the NHS Confederation board. Social Investigations journalist Andrew Robertson
examines the development of one of the best-connected and most persuasive
privatisation cheerleaders. Full story...

9. Tax Haven? No Contract: The
message proffered by David Cameron when he spoke at the World Economic Forum in
Davos was tax avoidance would become a priority of the UK’s presidency
for this year. In reality, the government acts in the opposite manner, rewards
those companies who channel money to tax havens with further contracts paid for
by the taxpayer. Full story...

10. Rights for Shares: No
Mandate, Unwanted Rejected: George Osborne has maintained his stance to weaken
worker protections in exchange for shares. In doing so he exposes himself as
utterly undemocratic, and highlights the need for the unions to regain some
strength. Full story...

11. Healthcare Contracts Connecting
Lords and MPs and Their Companies: This list represents private healthcare companies
that are financially linked to Lords and MPs from all parties that have won
contracts since the government announced the white paper Equity and Excellence:
Liberating the NHS, which in turn led to the Health and Social Care Act. Full story...

12. Lord
Help Us – Tory Donor Made Peer Reveals A Broken System: When it was announced that John Nash would become a
life peer of the House of Lords, I added his name to the list
of over 200 parliamentarians who have recent past or present financial links to
companies involved in healthcare. Full story...

13. Labour Used Virgin ‘Restricted’
Report to Open NHS to Healthcare Companies: A hitherto restricted report
commissioned by Labour back in 2000 has revealed how Virgin overstepped their
remit – advice on improving customer service in the NHS - by promoting an
increase in the use of private companies. Further inclusions written into the
report by mystery authors also reveal a fledgling policy idea that would later
become part of Virgin’s expansion into the healthcare market. The document also
sheds light on New Labour’s wider programme of marketising the NHS – the job
the Coalition has now seen to conclusion. Full story...

14. Half Billion Tax Haven
Transfer: A private outsourcing company who are in receipt of one of the
highest government spends have channeled over half a billion pounds into an
offshore tax haven. One of the group of company directors, part-funded David
Cameron’s leadership campaign in 2005 with two £10,000 payments. Full story...

Monday, 1 July 2013

New
research conducted by Social Investigations has revealed a Head Hunter firm with
financial links to a Conservative Baroness has been able to gain revenue
directly from changes that took place because of the Health and Social Care Act
on which the Baroness voted. Furthermore, the Chairman of the company has
funded the Conservative party in a process that changes the NHS from within.

Baroness Bottomley is the Chair of the Board and CEO practice of Odgers
Berndtson and also holds shares in their holding company Broomco Ltd.

The
head hunter company works in thirteen industry areas including Healthcare, and
been heavily involved in vetting key personnel into the new NHS

Their website boasts of their ‘unparalleled reach across the NHS, (and) private
sector healthcare...(which) enables us to attract inspirational candidates
others might never find.’

A
key part of the Health and Social Care Act was to move commissioning
responsibility for NHS services from Primary Care Trusts to the newly formed
Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs).

Wednesday, 26 June 2013

The House of Commons
have just hosted a second debate on lobbying, following
the recent scandal to envelop parliament and once more soil the already
tarnished reputation of UK politics.

In the debate, which
was on the introduction of a statutory register of lobbyists, the Labour MP for
Easington, Grahame Morris, chose to highlight the breadth of healthcare
interests held by MPs and Lords; the first time this research has entered into
parliamentary discussion.

In the debate, he
asked the leader of the House of Commons, Andrew Lansley how he thought the
public would react ‘when they find out that, one
in four
Conservative peers…have
recent or current financial links
with private health care? Will the Bill address that?’

Monday, 24 June 2013

Documents released by the
Department of Health under the Freedom of Information Act reveal a healthcare
think tank with multiple links to coalition peers wants to turn the NHS into an
“asset” of “UK Plc” - and which suggests the government needs to “charm”
private healthcare “international corporations”

2020health calls itself an ”independent, grass roots think tank”
whose purpose is to “create the conditions for a healthy society through
research, evaluation, campaigning and relationships.”

Correspondence between the health minister Earl Howe, former patron of 2020
Health, and the think tank’s founder Julia Manning reveals some of the nature
of these ‘relationships’.

At Julia Manning’s invitation, Earl Howe was a guest speaker at a ‘high-level
discussion breakfast roundtable’ with key clinical and industry leaders back in
February 2011, during the ‘listening pause’ in the passage of the Health &
Social Care Act through parliament. After the meeting, Ms Manning wrote to
thank Earl Howe. In the letter, which has been obtained by Social
Investigations, she noted that Earl Howe had told the meeting that the message
of the UK
health being open for business was “not getting through.”

Manning had asked what should be done to attract “global companies to the UK.” She pushed
for a “radical message” to make the NHS part of the “UK PLC”, an “asset” and “driver
of economic growth.”

Tuesday, 4 June 2013

The Parliamentary Under
secretary for Health Earl Howe, who led the Health and Social Care bill
proceedings in the House of Lords, was listed as a patron for pro-market think
tank 2020health, just before the elections.

Knowledge of the Earl’s
patronage has only just appeared after the discovery of a policy paper
written by 2020health for the Spanish right-wing publication ‘Sanifax.’ The
‘Dosier Especial’ titled ‘a healthier nation’, was a Green policy paper
produced in January 2010 and introduced in Spanish as having been created with
the ‘support of David Cameron’ on the ‘necessary reforms.’

Monday, 3 June 2013

In 2009, the Rt Reverend
and Crossbench Peer Lord Eames, was appointed as the head of a cross party
review group to draw up new rules that would ban Lords from taking money from
lobby firms to ask questions in parliament.

The rule change took place
following allegations that four Labour Lords had offered to try and amend laws
for up to £120,000. At the time, not only were there no rules to prevent such
behaviour, but there was also no Commissioner for Standards to investigate
wrongdoing.

Lord Eames concluded in a
report that the rules needed to change, a commissioner for standards needed to
be instated because “We need to restore public confidence in the House of
Lords, and in the conduct of its members…There is no place in the House of
Lords for 'peers for hire'." At least these two proposals were implemented,
but the House of Lords has remained an open house to lobbyists.

Monday, 13 May 2013

Number 10 today welcomes Nick Seddon, former
lobbyist and private healthcare advocate, into Downing Street to lead on health
policy formation. What does this say about Cameron’s real attitude to the
lobbying game he has publicly decried? And what kind of policies will Seddon be
pushing now? There are good reasons to be concerned.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------Just before
the general election, David Cameron declared his opposition to lobbying, saying “we all know how it
works. The lunches, the hospitality, the quiet word in your ear, the
ex-ministers and ex-advisors for hire... It arouses people’s worst fears and
suspicions about how our political system works, with money buying power, power
fishing for money and a cosy club at the top making decisions in their own
interest...We can't go on like this”

Today, Number 10 will welcome former lobbyist Nick Seddon into the heart of
Downing Street, as his health adviser. Seddon’s last role was as deputy
director of ‘Reform’ - a free market think tank extensively funded by
healthcare and insurance companies. He has openly called for an end to the NHS
as we know it, and promoted the idea of an insurance-based system.

Before joining Reform, Nick Seddon was
head of communications at private healthcare company Circle - the first company
to take over the running
of a NHS hospital.

His role during the passage of the
Health and Social Care bill was to lobby key people to defend competition in
the bill. His reward? A place in Cameron’s health policy unit,developingpolicies for the 2015 general election.

Thursday, 25 April 2013

'In the conduct of their parliamentary duties,
Members of the House shall base their actions on consideration
of the public interest, and shall resolve any conflict between
their personal interest and the public interest at once, and in
favour of the public interest.' - the Lord's Code of Conduct

The Lords
have spoken. The coalition with a little help from Labour Peer, Lord Warner
chose to vote in favour of the government to keep section 75 regulations of the
Health and Social Care Act in place. In doing so, they imposed increased legal
pressures on the new commissioners to put out services to tender, which will
fragment the NHS into the hands of private companies.

Tuesday, 23 April 2013

In early 2012 the Lords voted in favour of the Health and Social Care
bill, the final step in turning it into an Act. As the Lords sat in the house
to debate and vote on the bill, research conducted by Social Investigations revealed the Lords were riddled with private
healthcare interests across all parties. Despite these recent or present
financial links to private companies involved in healthcare, they were allowed
to debate and vote.

Now, for the
second time of asking the Lords are about to pass or reject a key piece of
legislation that will affect the NHS to such an extent its very existence is in
the balance. Will they or will they not choose to vote for or against section 75
Regulations of the Health and Social Care Act. If it is the former, then if passed will sound the
death knell to the NHS.

The message proffered by David Cameron when he spoke at the World Economic
Forum in Davos was tax avoidance would become a priority of the UK’s
presidency for this year. In reality, the government acts in the opposite
manner, rewards those companies who channel money to tax havens with further
contracts paid for by the taxpayer.

The calls for the government to bring about an end to tax havens has continued
to grow ever louder as the general public observe the stripping of the welfare
state, whilst billions of pounds exits the county into offshore accounts. Many
of these companies are in receipt of taxpayer’s money, which are handed
contracts by cash-strapped councils who continue to work with the organisations
despite their dubious tax practices.

George Osborne has maintained his stance
to weaken worker protections in exchange for shares. In doing so he exposes
himself as utterly undemocratic, and highlights the need for the unions to regain some strength. The latest chapter of the undemocratic
tale that threatens to shred hard-earned worker protections is about to reach a
conclusion. The Lords have just voted for a second time to reject plans to swap
protections for shares, a policy rejected by business as unworkable and
unwanted.The process began when David Cameron asked
Adrian Beecroft, a venture capitalist;
a funder to the Tory party and investor in pay-day lender Wonga, to write a
report on ways to grow the economy. The report focused largely on how difficult
it is to dismiss someone, and that the process 'makes it too easy for employees
to claim they have been unfairly treated'.

Wednesday, 10 April 2013

A private outsourcing company who are in
receipt of one of the highest government spends have channeled over
half a billion pounds into an offshore tax haven.

The Pears family’s property empire began back in 1950 when the grandfather ran
the humble business of three greengrocer stores in North London. Today however,
they control Trillium Holdings which owns about a third of the Department of
Work and Pensions (DWP) estate, including job centres, the pension service and
child maintenance offices.

Trillium and its subsidiary companies - are responsible for a £3.2bn 20-year deal to manage and provide property services for the DWP offices.

This is where it gets complicated. The
parent company of Trillium Holdings is owned by London Wall Outsourcing, which
in turn is owned by London Wall Outsourcing Holdings Limited. This company is
incorporated in the British Virgin Islands. The ultimate controlling entity is
the B Pears family trust in Bermuda.

Since 2008, London Wall Outsourcing accounts reveal that the vast sum of £666.7m has been sent in dividends to its Virgin Island based parent.

The British Virgin Islands appeared in the
news recently in dramatic fashion, after a massive leak of over 2 million
emails and documents revealed a host of political leaders and wealthy individuals whose fortunes
are stored in the tax haven.

The Pears family control a property empire valued at £6bn through a labyrinth of
companies. Until her death in 1999, the matriarch Clarice Pears was one of the
country’s richest women, with a fortune that surpassed that of the Queen. The
Pears brother, Mark, Trevor and David, have an estimated wealth of £1.7bn,
which ranks them at 38 on the Sunday Times Rich List.

One of the Pears brothers, Trevor,
part-funded David Cameron’s leadership campaign in 2005 with two £10,000 payments.
The Prime Minister has said tax havens and avoidance will be key part of the G8
summit in June this year, yet here we have his leadership being part-funded by
a director of a company who are involved in tax havens.

In a rare interview given to the Telegraph, director Mark Pears said
“We have got nothing to hide, but we are a private company”.

The business empire is run by the William Pears Group, which has been built
over the last sixty years and encompasses residential property, offices and fund management. The latest accounts
reveal the family company quadrupled their profit over the last year. One of
the family’s property coups has been the purchase of a vast chunk of the DWP
estate.

In 1998 under Blair, the then Department of Social Security transferred the management and ownership of its estate to Trillium, which had been set up by two entrepreneurs and was later bought by the property company Land Securities. The government obtained £250m for its estate and agreed a £2bn contract for serviced accommodation until 2018.

In December 2003, the Land Securities contract - known as the PRIME agreement extended to cover the Employment Service estate. The company bought the offices for £140m and agreed a £1.2bn deal to provide serviced offices. A NAO inquiry
concluded that the deal was good value for the taxpayer and justified.

Six years later, Land Securities sold Trillium to the William Pears Group for £750m, which included
the DWP estate and the government contracts. The changeover of more than 300 government offices to a company
who’s ultimate ownership lies in an offshore company was not undertaken.

The DWP is paying about £464m a year for services to Trillium, but the company has also seen a steep increase in the value of the offices it now owns. Trillium, who are advised by Conservative Peer Lord Griffths of Fforestfach, values its DWP estate at more than £1bn.

The group’s use of tax
havens will be even more frustrating for the taxpayer given the fact that the company’s
revenue is hugely bolstered by British public spending; a situation that looks
set to significantly increase. In 2012, the government made anannouncementthat a new organisationto manage Defence
property was to be formed, called the Defence Infrastructure Organisation. The
new programmewill see
contracts of MOD facilities across England and Walesdrawnup, worth up to £4.35bn andTelereal Trillium, who are a member of free market think tank Reform, have
been short-listed as part of one of three consortia approved for making bids for the MOD estate
contracts.

SeeTelereal Trillium Holdings Accounts (scroll to bottom to see link to London Wall)SeeLondon Wall Outsourcing Accounts (scroll to bottom to see link to BVI and Bermuda)

Friday, 5 April 2013

The Chair of the committee
that advises on business appointments to departing senior civil servants is a
director of a company that has won a contract related to the Health and Social
Care Act in which he voted in favour.

Lord Lang of
Monkton is the chair of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments
(ACOBA). Set up in 1975, the remit of the committee is given by the Chairman
Lord Lang on the website

‘It is
long-standing government policy that it is in the public interest that those
with experience in government should be able to move into business or other
areas of public life and it is equally important that in the taking up of an
appointment, there is no cause for suspicion of impropriety.’

Lord Lang of
Monkton is also the director of Marsh & McLennan, a risk and strategy
management company that amongst other services helps ‘hospitals, insurers, pharmaceutical companies and
industry associations understand the implications of changing policy
environments".

Despite this
interest, Lord Lang along with 142 other peers with recent or present financial
links to companies involved in private healthcare, was able to vote on the
Health and Social Care bill helping it become an Act. The Conservative peer did
indeed vote in all key divisions loyal to his
party.

In February 2011
Marsh was appointed by the Department of Health
to conduct an ‘industry review’ of the NHS Litigation Authority. The objective
of the review was to ‘identify opportunities to introduce greater commercial
management and practice to services.

Early days

ACOBA was
initially created to provide advice on applications from the most senior Crown
servants who wish to take up outside appointments after they leave Crown
service. The work of the committee then expanded from 1995 to provide advice to
Ministers on their employment for two years after leaving office.

The organisation’s
inability to prevent the conflicts of interests that riddle both parliamentary
houses led the transparency campaigners Spinwatch to call for ACOBA’s
abolition.

McKinsey

In written evidence submitted to the
Public Administration Committee on a report on business appointment rules, they
pointed out the danger private interests being in a position to gain ‘a
competitive advantage by virtue of the inside knowledge, contacts and networks
developed while in (temporary) public service.’

Further evidence
focused on McKinsey, the management consultancy company that encouraged the £20
billion cuts the NHS is now forced to apply and who made several suggestions to end the free at
the point of need in Northern Ireland.

Spinwatch pointed
out how Tom Kibasi who ‘started at McKinsey in 2004, left two years later to
become Senior Policy Advisor to chief executive of the NHS David Nicholson, and
moved back to McKinsey in 2008, where he’s been busy helping the DH reform the
system.’ Further revolving door behaviour came in the form of David Cox, who
‘worked in the NHS, jumped ship to McKinsey, then moved to the Conservative
Party’s “Implementation team” for nine months, before settling at NHS London as
“Strategy Manager” responsible for “cutting-edge system-wide design and
planning of London’s healthcare system strategy.”’

Ex-NHS hospital
head Mark Goldman is now an adviser for the ‘McKinsey Hospital Institute,
(which contracts its services to NHS hospitals); ex-McKinsey consultant Nick
Moberly who is now CEO of Royal Surrey County Hospital; Dr Doug Russell,
ex-medical director of Tower Hamlets and now senior advisor to McKinsey.’

Such links are but
the tip of the iceberg, which Spinwatch rightfully concluded continue despite
the existence of ACOBA, which led them to conclude ‘We believe that ACOBA is an
ineffective body that should be abolished and replaced with a statutory
regulator.’

All civil servants
who go through the site are told either it is okay to take up this job without
conditions or if conditions apply then a standard reply is given such as - so
long as it is on
the understanding that the person ‘would not draw on any privileged information
from his time in Government.’

When Jim Easton left his position as ‘Director
of Improvement and Efficiency’, at the Department of Health to become Managing
director of Care UK, ACOBA stated that there must be ‘a
waiting period of three months from his last day of service; that for 12 months,
he should not become involved in advising on bids or contracts for Department
of Health business; andthat, for two years from the
same date, he should not become personally involved in lobbying UK Government
on behalf of his new employer.‘

Do you trust that
this won’t happen in some form? Do we honestly believe that when a person moves to a corporation they do not pass on information to their corporate employer
on government thinking!

The line between
public servants and corporate employees is practically non-existent which
Spinwatch suggests would be much better served with a statutory regulator
because ACOBA lacks ‘teeth’. ACOBA has no enforcement powers, so even if a person was to step out of line, nothing would be done, which is why Paul Flynn, Labour’s
tireless campaigner on lobbying described it as a ‘Committee of Futility.’

In the meantime,
they can start improving things by removing a chairman who voted on a health
bill despite a financial link to a company who earned a contract from the NHS
on the changes before it became an Act. A Lord who offered
his services to a fake lobbying company in a 2010 Channel 4 sting.

The committee is utterly flawed,
the work they do has made no difference to combat the problems of the
revolving door of civil servants working in the private sector only to
return on the corporations behalf. I add my voice to those of Spinwatch and Paul Flynn calling for its
abolition. Also the resignation of Lord Lang from both ACOBA and the Lords.

Thursday, 21 March 2013

The transformation of a small private
healthcare trade association into a powerful and influential lobby group
provides a clear indication of the direction the NHS has taken. Today the NHS Partners Network has some
of the most powerful private healthcare companies as members and is a trustee
on the NHS Confederation board. Social Investigations journalist Andrew
Robertson examines the development of one of the best-connected and most
persuasive privatisation cheerleaders.